Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

I bought an N1 several months ago and I now have something to write about.

Choosing a piano is a personal thing and I chose the N1 because I loved it at the gallery. Now I love it even more. But this is not enough, so I invited many of my pianist friends ranging from soloists to collaborative pianists to try it. They all tell me the same thing: far beyond expectations.

One of my friends practises on a very good Steinway babygrand almost everyday. And when he touched the N1, he couldn't help playing on it for 1 hour. He told me that he had difficulties defining the instrument. He played some Enescu and told me that the N1 had remarkably long harmonics which helps the chord sections sound longer and much better than on a regular acoustic grand. This helps him to hear the music and phrase better. Sometimes he thought that this was too good and unrealistic but I told him: "Maybe not that unrealistic on a concert grand". Because when I practice on the N1 I feel in a concert hall. I experienced the similar harmonics only on the stage on a concert grand. It's a wierd feeling to hear those harmonics at home.

We all agreed on the fact that some 4-5 notes higher than the middle C sound not natural. Because of that notes, or thanks to that notes, I remember that I am not playing on a concert grand. Beside those notes, it sounds amazingly good. The bass and high octaves are unbelievable.

The sustain pedal effect is exaggerated even on the N1 which doesn't have the TRS. Just play a chord and after that if you press the sustain pedal it does a noticible creshendo. this is not disturbing. The good thing about the sustain pedal is that it feels just like the real thing and I have never experienced a similar pedal experience on an upright piano. This is a very big plus if we make a price comparison between a high end acoustic upright and N1. A Yamaha U3 is listed almost 2 times more expensive than the N1 in my country. I played the U3 and never had the same pedalling experience. U3 sounds beautiful but N1 surprises more.

The sostenuto pedal sounds very beautiful. I sometimes wish that N1 always sounded like it does with the sostenuto pedal. It reminds me the sound of Grantouch2.

The second piano sounds brighter as it always is on many digitals. But it sometimes sounds more natural than the first piano sound. I sometimes like to practice on the second piano even if I don't like a bright piano sound. It just sounds more natural sometimes and refreshens the practise experience.

I have a C1 in my class and I practice on it everyday. It's a good grand piano for practising and it sounds deeper than the N1 in the acoustics of a big class. It really depends on my mood everyday. Sometimes I like the N1 more, sometimes the C1 more. But if we talk about the action, N1 has its own grand action designed for itself. It's not the same actions as on the C1 or C2 or C3...It's lighter. Just make an octave glissando or normal glissando and you will know the difference easily.

The engineers should adjust the sensors differently or put additional sensors. I cannot do a legato on the same key without the pedal on the N1. I mean I cannot connect the same notes without making the sound die. But I can achieve it on C1. I can play the same note again and again, legato without the pedal on the C1. I won't write about the playing off the jack again. This is not an essential feature. But it should not be that difficult for Yamaha to make these improvements for the next generation of the hybrids.

Practising with the headphones is okey, but not as exciting as practising with its own speakers.

To sum up, N1 is a very good piano. It really is a hybrid as promised. After all the experience that I have, I cannot call it as a digital piano. I am lucky and happy to have a great practise piano. Every single day, even I practise on the C1, I still dream about arriving home and playing on the N1. I used the compare both of them a lot but now I compare them less. They are different instruments with different characters. I strongly recommend it and consider it possibly the best value for money piano.

I am dying to see hybrid rivals by other brands...So that there will be another category in this forum: "Hybrid Pianos"

Interesting read! Congrats on the new piano. It's very interesting to aknowledge the potential strengths of this cabinet-sounding, real-actions type of verticals.

I was wondering if you could elaborate on this ussue of 'playing legato the same note'. I'm not a native English speaker and I'm not sure I understand. Are you referring to switching fingers on an already played note to keep the sound going? (where the sound of the note is only heard once), Or are you referring to making the note sound several times and having the sound legato with the previous one?

Ozgur: Are you fully releasing the key, or are you trying to play without damping the note?

On my Casio PX-330, which as we know has a triple sensor action, if I repeat the same note whilst fully releasing the key, each note will sound very similar, and perhaps unrealistically so. Perhaps, the fact that each note sounds exactly the same is producing the "disconnected" feeling. However, if I partially release the key, such that the notes are not damped, I hear a subtle "jaw harp" effect - each note sounds subtely different. This sounds authentic to me - it sounds how I would imagine a real piano would sound, because on a real piano, repeatedly striking a note without the note being damped does produce a varying timbre. The reason the Casio sounds the way it does is very simple: I am practically certain it simply allows each note to continue to ring, which results in multiple overlapping voices playing the SAME note. These overlapping notes produce a varying phasing effect, which sounds quite authentic, even though of course this is now what happens in a real piano.

Now, even when fully releasing the key, it may be that a real piano still has more variation between successive notes than a digital piano does. For DAMPED repetitions, the EWQLP software actually uses samples of multiple repetitions, which it uses when a note is repeated rapidly.

The UNdamped sound is easier to simulate, with the overlapping voice technique. I have heard the same effect on a Yamaha Clavinova (with the GH3 action), when doing partial-release repetitions. I would be very surprised if the N1 didn't also do this.

Interesting read! Congrats on the new piano. It's very interesting to aknowledge the potential strengths of this cabinet-sounding, real-actions type of verticals.

I was wondering if you could elaborate on this ussue of 'playing legato the same note'. I'm not a native English speaker and I'm not sure I understand. Are you referring to switching fingers on an already played note to keep the sound going? (where the sound of the note is only heard once), Or are you referring to making the note sound several times and having the sound legato with the previous one?

Thanks for any input,Rafa.

I am not a native speaker either and I sometimes have difficulties explaining

I am talking about having the sound legato with the previous one. It's easy to achieve on a good acoustic grand. Press the key until the end, release it just above the 2nd resistance (around the 1st resistance) and press the key again while you still hear the sound. This is NOT playing off the jack. This is the only way to make a legato on the same key without the help of a pedal.

Ozgur: Are you fully releasing the key, or are you trying to play without damping the note?

On my Casio PX-330, which as we know has a triple sensor action, if I repeat the same note whilst fully releasing the key, each note will sound very similar. However, if I partially release the key, such that the notes are not damped, I hear a subtle "jaw harp" effect - each note sounds subtely different. This sounds authentic to me - it sounds how I would imagine a real piano would sound, because on a real piano, repeatedly striking a note without the note being damped does produce a varying timbre. The reason the Casio sounds the way it does is very simple: I am practically certain it simply allows each note to continue to ring, which results in multiple overlapping voices playing the SAME note. These overlapping notes produce a varying phasing effect, which sounds quite authentic, even though of course this is now what happens in a real piano.

Now, even when fully releasing the key, it may be that a real piano still has more variation between successive notes than a digital piano does. For DAMPED repetitions, the EWQLP software actually uses samples of multiple repetitions, which it uses when a note is repeated rapidly.

The UNdamped sound is easier to simulate, with the overlapping voice technique. I have heard the same effect on a Yamaha Clavinova (with the GH3 action), when doing partial-release repetitions. I would be very surprised if the N1 didn't also do this.

So - are you doing full releases, or partial releases?

Greg.

I can do partial-release repetitions on the N1 but again, if I do it in slow motion the sounds of the same note never connect, disabling the legato.

Odd. I'd be interested to hear a recording if you're willing to go to the trouble.

Greg.

Actually you don't need a recording. I just need to explain it more properly.

On a normal acoustic grand:

- I press a key until the end. I hear the note.- I release the key almost completely. I still hear the note.- I press the key again until the end. I hear the note again.- I call this playing legato on the same key. Because there is not any space between the sounds.

On the N1:

- I press a key until the end. I hear the note.- I release the key almost completely. I still hear the note.- I press the key again until the end. I CANNOT hear the note.

Again, on the N1:

- I press a key until the end. I hear the note.- I release the key almost completely. I still hear the note.- I release the key even more, but NOT completely. I cannot hear the note.- I press the key again and I hear the note again.- But this is not a legato because I had to release the key more and the sound died.

So N1 lets me to play the same note again, only after the sound dies. Just like many upright pianos.

Ozgur: Thanks - I agree - no need for a recording. It appears that your N1 does NOT simulate double-escapement. I saw a comment from another AvantGrand user (not sure which - I think it was either the N2 or N3) who tested it, and it DID simulate double-escapement.

Even though the N1 is the lowest model of the A.G series, I would have expected it to simulate double-escapement. I have never tried any A.G - it will be interesting to see what other A.G owners have to say about this.

My Casio PX-330 passes your test, as should almost all Yamaha Clavinovas, because almost all Clavinovas have a tri-sensor action.

Maybe there is something wrong with your N1.......

I cannot believe that Yamaha would deliberately omit double-escapement on the N1.

Ozgur: Thanks - I agree - no need for a recording. It appears that your N1 does NOT simulate double-escapement. I saw a comment from another AvantGrand user (not sure which - I think it was either the N2 or N3) who tested it, and it DID simulate double-escapement.

Even though the N1 is the lowest model of the A.G series, I would have expected it to simulate double-escapement. I have never tried any A.G - it will be interesting to see what other A.G owners have to say about this.

My Casio PX-330 passes your test, as should almost all Yamaha Clavinovas, because almost all Clavinovas have a tri-sensor action.

Maybe there is something wrong with your N1.......

I cannot believe that Yamaha would deliberately omit double-escapement on the N1.

Greg.

Thanks for the guidance. Here, I request from other AG users to do the same test and write what happens. I have to repeat: This is not "playing off the jack". This actually is a necessary feature for practising. I need to know if other AG users can do this test.

@EssBrace: that confuses me a bit . When I talked about the product it was in the mathematical sense requesting two part to be multiplied. What you mean is, the hammer speed only is re-produced by the transducer? Then it is different to DP and may be more similar to what is used on the silent systems. Of course the thing with the recording at the hammer contact to the simulated string for the alpha (what is my interpretation) requires something different then what is used on a DP. But never it is the energy measured. I hope it is right what I interpret and thanks for explaining me about the type of measurement that happens on the alpha. I confirm, it is not ground breaking, but a further variant of creating some mechanic-electrical system to find out the characteristics of key motion. All that are very interesting constructions for high end DPs. Experience will decide only what is better, but never better then an acoustic piano at the same price, as long trials are done to simulate the (d)efficiency of an acoustic piano.

"The hammers do not strike the usual two or three strings, but rather pressure sensors that were specially designed for the ALPHA Piano. They represent an entirely novel form of measuring the hammer's strike energy.

These sensors involve plates that are equipped with pressure/force transducers. What is decisive for the playing feeling is the fact that these sensors behave like piano strings. Using them, the impact force and the resistance at the point of impact are determined. It works like a traditional grand piano, in which the force of the hammer head's impact determines the volume."

Yes I get all that but while their methodology is different what they are really measuring is the speed of the hammers. Or perhaps I should say the result would be the same anyway. A faster hammer strikes the string(s) harder. And that means a louder tone. Or am I missing something?

Yes I get all that but while their methodology is different what they are really measuring is the speed of the hammers. Or perhaps I should say the result would be the same anyway. A faster hammer strikes the string(s) harder. And that means a louder tone. Or am I missing something?

The result would be the same or at least very similar. That is also what I think but I know so little about the physics. My guess is that measuring and calculating the weight is a lot easier and more accurate. And the action has real hammer heads which means the ultimate feel of a concert grand action.

I believe "strike energy" would be a function of both the speed and the mass of the hammer as it strikes the sensor, to start with. And also (possibly) the density of the hammer, come to think of it.

The VSL Bosendorfer sample set is very large. The Alpha FAQ describes it as "1200 samples at 100 different dynamic levels for each of the 97 keys."

Alpha also claim to be maintaining 3000 levels of dynamic resolution internally, so they appear to be up to something more complicated than just mapping hammer speed to the usual velocity-layer sample set. (I realize there's a discussion to be had as to the limits in human perception of differences in velocity.)

I don't see any advantage in computing strike energy vs. using velocity. For any given action construction, the two are directly related. Measure velocity and you know the energy. It's easy to measure the velocity, so that's what's done in most pianos.

So, essbrace ... no, you're not missing anything at all.

As for this:

Quote:

"The hammers do not strike the usual two or three strings, but rather pressure sensors that were specially designed for the ALPHA Piano. They represent an entirely novel form of measuring the hammer's strike energy.

These sensors involve plates that are equipped with pressure/force transducers. What is decisive for the playing feeling is the fact that these sensors behave like piano strings. Using them, the impact force and the resistance at the point of impact are determined. It works like a traditional grand piano, in which the force of the hammer head's impact determines the volume."

Quoting sales literature is like quoting political candidates. Either way, expect little more than bull crap.

In this case, the underlying statements (about transducers) may be true, but in the end it matters little. I prefer to judge a piano by playing, not by reading marketing spewage.

I don't see any advantage in computing strike energy vs. using velocity. For any given action construction, the two are directly related.

Holding hammer mass and density constant, strike energy should be a simple function of velocity. But these guys claim to be using an actual grand piano action (felt hammers, etc.), so neither of those two other factors can be assumed to be constant (as is implicitly assumed in most DPs). For that reason there may be some advantage in sensing strike energy vs. velocity.

It is evident that pressure transducers are used. So in fact - after all this discussion - I expect the measured signal is force versus time [Ns], while the kinetic energy of the hammer is Nm or kgm²/s². If there is a stiffness of the string simulated, which is then a static model of the string - inertia and string vibrations neglected - the force can be related to some displacement. So in principle energy could be calculated, but I rather guess this is all some marketing blabla with 50% physical content.

Holding hammer mass and density constant, strike energy should be a simple function of velocity. But these guys claim to be using an actual grand piano action (felt hammers, etc.), so neither of those two other factors can be assumed to be constant (as is implicitly assumed in most DPs). For that reason there may be some advantage in sensing strike energy vs. velocity.

Indeed they can change the tone as the hammers harden. Just like an acoustic. Bet they don't though?